Encouraging the Art of Communicating Science to Nonexperts with

Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Encouraging the Art of Communicating Science to Nonexperts with Don’t Be Such a Scientist Sarah K. St. Angelo* Department of Chemistry, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, United States S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: Randy Olson’s book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, was used to supplement a senior seminar in nanomaterials. While students learned about the chemistry behind useful properties of nanomaterials, they also analyzed how nanomaterials applications are presented to the public through advertising, science news, and popular culture artifacts. By using Don’t Be Such a Scientist, students learned how scientists can fail at communicating with the public and how they can become more effective communicators. To experience communicating to nonexperts, they presented outreach projects such as a video, activity, or discussion on nanomaterials. Example student projects in nanomaterials are discussed; however, Don’t Be Such a Scientist could easily be incorporated into a variety of scientific courses to include effective scientific communication to the public, a meaningful skill for all scientists and science students.

KEYWORDS: General Public, High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Graduate Education/Research, Public Understanding/Outreach, Communication/Writing, Textbooks/Reference Books, Nanotechnology

■

INTRODUCTION Communication genres in chemistry include laboratory reports, journal articles, literature reviews, grant proposals and reports, conference posters and oral presentations, teaching, public outreach, and even the most fundamental aspects of keeping lab notebooks. In the 2015 ACS Committee on Professional Training Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs, the importance of lab notebook keeping and the preparation of written reports is stressed.1 Likewise, the value of presenting research projects via poster or oral presentations is noted for the professional preparation of chemistry students.1 In scaffolding the experiences needed to develop skills of professional writing and presentationwhich are critical for the success of professional chemiststhe skill of communicating science to nonexperts can easily be overlooked, as it is not specifically mentioned in the guidelines. Recently, the Twitter hashtag #actuallivingscientist reflects the troubling issue that most Americans cannot name an actual living scientist.2 Furthermore, several studies of the public perceptions of scientists reflect cultural stereotypes of who scientists are and what they look like and indicate much of the public’s lack of direct familiarity with science and scientists.3−5 The divergence of how scientists and the general public view certain issues, like the safety of genetically modified foods or the reality of global climate change, may be associated with the public’s relative unfamiliarity with scientists and science. It is therefore valuable to include experiences in chemical education that encourage outreach to the public. Outreach activities can affect how scientists are perceived, perceptions of who can do © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

science, and what science tells us about important issues. Scientific communication, perhaps more than ever, affects public perception of science and public funding of it, so having more scientists who are willing and able to effectively communicate with the public supports all scientific disciplines.6 In a senior-level seminar focused on nanomaterials at Dickinson College, communication among scientists and between scientists and nonscientists was a central theme, and Randy Olson’s book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style,7 was used as the communications “textbook” in the course. By developing a sense of subject matter expertise in students, allowing them to evaluate communication of scientific issues for different audiences, and then providing them the opportunity to convey their knowledge in an honest, interesting, and accessible way to adult/peer nonexperts, chemistry students can be empowered to communicate effectively with the public. Students should gain deeper understanding of the subject matter by engaging in the conversion of their scientific knowledge to informative presentations for nonexperts. By adding Don’t Be Such a Scientist to a class or laboratory, strategies described here could be adapted for other topics and for students at various levels of education. Although this course has only been offered once for five senior chemistry/biochemistry students at Dickinson, the use of Don’t Be Such a Scientist seems to be effective and Received: December 14, 2017 Revised: March 7, 2018

A

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

ations keep scientists engaged in a topic of their interest; however, such cerebral ways of communicating do not effectively engage every audience. Connecting through the “heart” with emotion or through the “gut” with humor or through “lower organs” with sex appeal provides an ever widening audience. Olson asserts that the closer a presentation stays to the “head” the narrower the audience and the more likely the presentation is to fail to engage nonscientists. Accessing the less rational, contradictory, and instinctually driven organs can create a broader and more receptive audience, and the careful crafting of the presentation can and should provide accurate and appropriate scientific information that resonates with nonscientists. This approach to communication is counterintuitive to much of the training and expectationsand perhaps even natural preferencesscientists have for their professional communication styles. Because Olson clearly and authoritatively and entertainingly presents how we as scientists can fail to communicate with nonscientists, he conveys a difficult and sometimes painful assessment of how we often fall short and how we can do better.

valuable for developing communication skills for science students. The approach used here could be applied to numerous topics and course levels, from advanced topics courses in medicinal chemistry or drug development, to chemistry divisional courses like inorganic chemistry, to environmental chemistry, or to general interest courses like food chemistry. A unit on communication to the general public could be limited to a week or two about a narrow topic or laboratory experiment, or it could be included throughout a semester, as it was here. Alternatively, professional skills seminars related to writing and presentation could incorporate ideas presented in Don’t Be Such a Scientist. Chemistry clubs or science outreach groups could use ideas from the book in outreach projects to improve their understanding of communication to the public. In many ways, Don’t Be Such a Scientist could find itself in academic and related activities for science faculty and students.

■

BACKGROUND

Popular Science Books in Chemistry Courses

To Whom Are We Communicating?

The use of popular books in college level chemistry courses has been previously described in this Journal. The book Napoleon’s Buttons: 17 Molecules that Changed History has been incorporated into a nonmajors chemistry course8 and an organic chemistry course.9 The Poisoner’s Handbook has been used in a first-semester general-organic-biochemistry course to encourage interest and provide context with each chapter providing a poisonous compound that was integrated into the regular course materials.10 The goal of including Don’t Be Such a Scientist in this course in nanomaterials was not to provide a parallel popular or historical discussion of the subject matter. The purpose was to illuminate the ways in which scientists communicate to each other via professional presentations and journal articles and how these modes of communication can be ineffective or even detrimental when attempting to communicate with nontechnical audiences. Also, Don’t Be Such a Scientist creates additional context, in this case for nanomaterials, in that students were alerted to the many ways in which scientific information is conveyed to nonscientists

Community outreach activities are a popular way for chemists to engage with members of the public, particularly through annual ACS sponsored events like National Chemistry Week and Chemists Celebrate Earth Week.16 The importance of outreach activities and opportunities for scientists and science students to practice communicating with the public is reflected in numerous articles appearing in Chemical & Engineering News17−20 and the most prestigious scientific journals.21,22 There are several published examples of successful models of scientific outreach activities focused on children and youth in chemistry23−27 and other sciences.28,29 Outreach to adult nonscientists is often presented as a discussion of what to present or how to present rather than reports of successful outreach to this group,30,31 although it might be reasonable to assume that the authors are engaged in some form of scientific communication with the public. Community engagement with general audiences through performance and demonstrations,32 museum installations,33 and real-time analysis of participants’ samples34 have been reported. Other activities that could be converted to outreach, such as writing popular science35 and jingles36 or using storytelling,26 have been reported as means to engage science students with science. Opportunities to engage scientifically literate adults with scientific discussion related to funding nanotechnology has been reported with participants demonstrating knowledge gains and understanding of the topic.38 Blogging by graduate students allows them to practice writing for a general audience and makes their work available to the public without additional time or resources required by inperson presentations.37 Learning the skills to communicate science to all ages and backgrounds through various media is necessary to continue engaging the public in science-based concepts that are integral to everyday life and to correct misconceptions about modern day scientists and their work.

Communicating to “Organs” Besides Eyes and Ears

As an academic scientist in marine biology, Olson clearly demonstrated his abilities to do science and to effectively communicate his findings to scientific peers.11−15 In Don’t Be Such a Scientist, he describes how his communication skills and habits meant for science did not translate well into his second career as a film maker. The focus on information, the critical questioning and negating by colleagues and peers, and the impersonal, clinical detachment that supports rigorous and unbiased science can make scientists seem overly cerebral, negative, and boring to those not accustomed to scientific discourse. In Don’t Be Such a Scientist, Olson presents chapters on some of the obstacles many scientists face when communicating with the general public: being too cerebral, being too literal minded, being a poor storyteller, and, somewhat painfully, being unlikeable. He describes in a compelling and informed way how many of the approaches to knowledge and communication that work very well when applied to science often fail with a general audience. Perhaps the most fundamental reason, according to Olson, is that science operates in the rational and logical domain of the “head.” Convincing data, careful analysis, well-designed experiments, and reasonable explan-

■

COMBINING COMMUNICATION AND NANOMATERIALS The two-fold goal of this seminar in nanomaterials was to allow students to: (1) Develop their knowledge in the field of nanomaterials by applying prior coursework and evaluation of the chemical B

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

literacy skills in finding their topics. By comparing the information meant for scientists to that meant for a general audience, students identified the strategies for communication described in Don’t Be Such a Scientist. They were able to see how limiting technical information for the general audience could make the science more accessible but that it sometimes seemed incomplete. They also particularly noted how illustrations and humor could effectively generate interest in the topic. Students realized that much of the information meant for the public was simplifiedsometimes to the point of being misleading to a scientist’s eye. Students shared their findings with each other in class discussion; a larger class could do small group discussions to share the scientific information and communications strategies. The culmination of the semester project included 20-minute oral presentations given by each student meant for a scientific audience, an outreach project on the same topic meant for a nonexpert audience, and a comprehensive, reflective paper. The final project was completed in the order given (student handout available in Supporting Information). The “expert” scientific presentation allowed students to present their topic in a professional scientific way and to establish their scientifically informed familiarity with the topic. The presentation to a nonexpert audience then asked them to alter their presentation strategies and style to provide an engaging, accessible, and relevant interaction with their nonscientist peers. In this case, the nonscientific audience was a nonscience majors’ course but could have been given to a community audience or other teen or adult nonscientists. The evaluation of the communication strategy was informed by the short survey completed by the audience (available in the Supporting Information) as well as the student’s own written reflections on their presentation and our group follow-up discussions on the project. Finally, the paper demonstrated each student’s scientific understanding of the nanomaterials topic, provided a description and strategy for how they conveyed the topic to the nonexpert audience, and an evaluation of the success of their communication strategy. The final project topics and the presentation strategies used by the students are summarized in Table 2. The combined final project satisfied the highest levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy by students demonstrating synthesis of new topics and their own ideas and evaluation of their own projects in a thoughtful reflection. The demonstration of synthesis applied to both the nanomaterials subject matter and the communications skills. By choosing a topic not previously explored in the course, learning about the science, and then devising an effective outreach presentation, students created original, creative, scientifically accurate projects. Evaluation was accomplished in the final report as students reflected on their work with the help of audience feedback. All of the students were able to effectively evaluate and criticize their own work, particularly related to the communication skills explored in the course and final project.

literature and present what they learned about a nanomaterials topic to a scientific audience, and (2) Create a communication project for conveying honest, interesting, and accessible information on the same topic in nanomaterials to a nonexpert audience. The text Nanomaterials: An Introduction to Synthesis, Properties and Applications39 that groups nanomaterials by their properties was used to anchor the course for scientific content. An alternative text40 that groups nanomaterials by composition could be used to provide a different focus or modify the course structure for content. As students gained familiarity with key concepts for nanomaterials, such as surface effects and synthetic approaches, we augmented the textbook with current chemical literature and problem sets. To bring concepts of communication to different audiences, two iterations of combined written work and class discussion assignments were completed by students to make the connection between how the same scientific topic is presented to different audiences, particularly a nonscientific audience and a scientific audience (student handout available, Supporting Information). To achieve this goal, students critically analyzed an example of how science surrounding nanomaterials was presented to the public and for what purpose (e.g., advertising, informative, entertainment), and they compared it to the corresponding scientific publication or other scientific presentation on the same topic. Examples of topics chosen by students and the types of communication with nonscientific audiences are summarized in Table 1. Students were encouraged to let their own interests point them to a topic because that is how the nonscientific public may encounter such subjects. Table 1. Examples of Topics Chosen by Students Comparing Presentations of a Nanomaterial to Nonexpert Audiences and the Scientific Explanation of the Phenomenon or Property Nanomaterials Ag NPsa in toothpaste Ag NPs in bandages Au NPs for cancer treatment Graphene TiO2 Nanocomposite resins in hockey sticks High density computer memory a

Nanomaterials Concepts

Nonexpert Presentation Types

Antibacterial properties Antibacterial properties Surface plasmons

Online advertisement

Electronic properties of graphene Photocatalytic properties Physical properties of nanomaterials Superparamagnetic properties

Episode of The Big Bang Theory Article in Scientific American Online advertisement

Online product description Company Web site

Animated online explanation of product

NPs = nanoparticles.

The assignments in which students compare a nanomaterial topic presented to the general public and to a scientific audience satisfy intermediate learning levels defined in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning.41 The active comparison of communication styles demonstrated application of prior knowledge and skills as well as analysis of relevant materials for both the chemistry topic of nanomaterials and the communications/ outreach topics. By completing these assignments, students applied their previous coursework, their knowledge regarding nanomaterials from our course, and exercised their information

■

DISCUSSION OF OUTCOMES Audience surveys generally indicated the success of each nanomaterials outreach project. The survey asked audience members: • To articulate the “take home message” of each presentation, C

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Table 2. Final Project Topics with the Communication Strategies Used by Students Nanomaterials Topic (Figure 1 marker)

Nanomaterials Concepts/Application

Communication Strategy

Carbon nanotubes (solid circle)

Field emission for cooling of electronics

Dramatic reading

Nanoemulsions (diamond) Dip-pen nanolithography (triangle)

Self-assembly, drug delivery of nasal vaccines Atomic force microscopy, selfassembly

Video of roller blading students

Block copolymer nanocomposites (hollow circle) Nanowire assemblies (square)

Don’t Be Such a Scientist Main Devicesa

Do You Want to Know More? Yes, % (N = 36)

Heart Gut Gut

Beauty of nanotubes Humor (minor) Humor

42

Interactive mini-lecture

Head Heart

49

Self-assembly, thermal and photoresponsive materials

Mini-lecture with science fiction movie clips

Head

Refractive indices of nanomaterials, nanophotonics for optical cloaking

Video of “Nano-Girl” explaining optical cloaking to “Dude-Man”

Understanding scale Appreciating beauty of nanoscale Understanding selfassembly Humor Humor Flirtation

Gut Gut Lower organs Head

65

59

74

Explanation of refractive index and optical cloaking

The Don’t Be Such a Scientist “organs” used as communication devices to connect with the audience are provided. The most common organ accessed was the “gut” with the use of humor; however, perhaps the most successful presentation accessed three organs, the most by any presentation, and was the only one to access the “lower organs”.

a

• If they were interested in more information on the presentation topic and, if so, what was that information, • To rate the effectiveness of each presentation for communicating its message on a scale of 1 to 5 (“highly effective”), and • To rate how appropriate the level of technical information is, with 3 being the “right” amount of detail, 1 being “too much”, and 5 being “too little” detail. The results for the last two questions are summarized in Figure 1. While there was some variation among the audience

responses is given in Table 2. While no correlation could be drawn between wanting to know more and the other categories, it seems that perhaps the topics themselves and aspects of “looking to the future” made the audience want to know more. The three presentations that rated more than 50% of the audience wanting to know more had very clear links to “the future” or “science fiction” and very clear possible applications. The presentation for which nearly three-quarters of the audience wanted to know more was the nanowire-composite materials for optical cloaking. The video presentation used a short superhero story in which optical cloaking could be a useful device. In the presentation, Nano-Girl, shown in Figure 2, explains the invisibility device to a sort of antihero, DudeMan. This presentation also was the only one to fully access three of Olson’s four “organs,” the most used by any

Figure 1. Summary of audience surveys on the presentations’ level of detail, where 3 is “just right” and the presentations’ effectiveness from 1 to 5, where 5 is “highly effective. Error bars represent one standard deviation. Markers are associated with the topics presented in Table 2.

response on the amount of detail, the average for all presentations was 3.0, and the standard deviations for each presentation indicate that there is no statistical difference among them for that category. Audience reaction to the “effectiveness” of the presentations was similar, with each presentation being rated as at least reasonably effective for communicating its scientific message despite the range of topics and presentation approaches. The average for all presentations was 4.3/5.0. The most variance was seen in the responses to wanting to know more about each topic, and the percent of “yes”

Figure 2. Idealistic Nano-Girl enters to explain the potential power of optical cloaking with nanowire composite materials to her ignoble superhero friend, Dude-Man. D

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

perception of scientists, and public health and public policy, and it is worth including in chemical education.

presentation. The other presentations that inspired more than half of their audience to want to learn more were on nanoemulsions for vaccines (65% wanted to know more) and block copolymer nanocomposites for thermal and optical shape responsive materials (59% wanted to know more). The medical application and the future-looking, science fiction applications of shape-shifting and self-healing materials may have generated the audience interest. The two presentations that generated less additional interest were dip-pen nanolithography (49% wanted to know more) and carbon nanotubes for cooling nanoelectronics (42% wanted to know more). These presentations were successful and informative based on audience feedback on effectiveness and level of technical detail, but they focused more on the nanotechnology itself rather than the future applications and were not as successful in generating audience what-if/whatnext/what-more questions. The effective use of humorand accessing the “gut”was also associated with stronger audience desire to know more about the presentation topics. Humor and silliness effectively juxtaposed with otherwise serious science are nonliteral and surprising. They can delight audiences and create a positive association with a scientific topic. Olson notes7 that combining humor and science is a very important tool for effective communication to nonscientific audiences. The nonliteral, fun storytelling, whatever the medium, can provide meaningful access to wide audiences, and this correlation was observed in student presentations on nanomaterials. According to Olson, accessing organs below the “head” provides more effective access to a widening audience: When it comes to connecting with the entire audience, you have four bodily organs that are important: your head, your heart, your gut, and your sex organs. The object is to move the process down out of your head, into your heart with sincerity, into your gut with humor, and, ideally, if you are sexy enough, into your lower organs with sex appeal.7 Accessing sex appeal may not be desirable, appropriate, or comfortable for every topic, audience, or presenter; however, humor from the “gut” will support effective communication with a wide audience. Even pure nonsensical silliness, like that employed in a video in which students on roller blades pretended to be nanoemulsions, can generate interest. The audience must be engaged to receive the message, and comedy is an effective medium for engaging an audience.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

The Supporting Information is available on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963. Assignments for analyzing nanomaterial communication and for final project; audience survey for student presentations (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. ORCID

Sarah K. St. Angelo: 0000-0003-3294-7963 Notes

The author declares no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Keith Chapman for providing graphical abstract artwork of Nano-Girl, Pamela Higgins for helpful comments on the manuscript, and the reviewers for useful feedback. Also, the author wishes to thank members of the Nanomaterials class whose enthusiasm and sincere work made the course a pleasure to teach: Joshua Foong, Erica Hartz (Nano-Girl), Alejo Lifschitz, Jeffrey Rodgers, and Sara White.

■

REFERENCES

(1) ACS Office of Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines and Evaluation Procedures for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, D.C., 2015. (2) Becker, R. Meet some #actuallivingscientists on Twitter; The Verge, 2 0 17 . h t t p s : / / w w w . t h e v e r g e . c o m / 2 0 1 7 / 2 / 3 /1 4 5 0 6 0 6 8 / actuallivingscientists-twitter-viral-hashtag-actual-living-scientists (accessed March, 2018). (3) Gheorghiu, A. I.; Callan, M. J.; Skylark, W. J. Facial Appearance Affects Science Communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017, 114, 5970−5975. (4) Oktay, O.; Eryurt, K. How High School Students Represent the Image of Scientists in Their Minds. 4th World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2012) 2012, 46, 2482−2486. (5) Samaras, G.; Bonoti, F.; Christidou, V. Exploring Children’s Perceptions of Scientists through Drawing and Interviews. 4th World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2012); Elsevier, 2012, 46, 1541−1546. (6) Campbell, A. A. Communicating Science Effectively to the Public. Chem. Eng. News 2017, 95, 34. (7) Olson, R. Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style; Island Press: Washington D.C., 2009. (8) Samet, C.; Higgins, P. Napoleon’s Buttons: Teaching the Role of Chemistry in History. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1496−1500. (9) Bucholtz, K. M. Spicing Things Up by Adding Color and Relieving Pain: The Use of Napoleon’s Buttons in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 158−161. (10) Zuidema, D. R.; Herndon, L. B. Using The Poisoner’s Handbook in Conjunction with Teaching a First Term General/Organic/ Biochemistry Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 98−102. (11) Olson, R. The Consequences of Short-Distance Larval Dispersal in a Sessile Marine Invertebrate. Ecology 1985, 66, 30−39.

■

CONCLUSIONS A successful model for incorporating communication to nonexperts in a special topics course in nanomaterials chemistry has been presented here. While outreach to children and younger students is important for generating interest in science, honest, effective scientific communication to adult nonexperts is an important skill for scientists at all levels to develop and practice. By using Randy Olson’s book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist, chemistry students were able to critically evaluate existing communication meant for nonexperts via, for example, advertising and magazine articles. Students also designed their own communication projects on a nanomaterial or nanotechnology that were presented to an audience of nonexperts. While the model used here could be readily used with other special topics courses in a similar fashion, ideas or more limited projects could be tailored for a variety of chemistry or other science courses for college or high school students. The honest and effective scientific communication to nonexpert adults can influence public funding of science, E

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

Supplied Objects at a Public Outreach Event. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 1749−1753. (35) Simon, U. K.; Steindl, H.; Larcher, N.; Kulac, H.; Hotter, A. Young Science Journalism: Writing Popular Scientific Articles May Contribute to an Increase of High School Students’ Interest in the Natural Sciences. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2016, 38, 814−841. (36) Heid, P. F. Writing Chemistry Jingles as an Introductory Activity in a High School Chemistry Class. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1394−1396. (37) Jones, A. R.; Anderson, A. A.; Yeo, S. K.; Greenberg, A. E.; Brossard, D.; Moore, J. W. Using a Deliberative Exercise to Foster Public Engagement in Nanotechnology. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 179− 187. (38) Bishop, L. M.; Tillman, A. S.; Geiger, F. M.; Haynes, C. L.; Klaper, R. D.; Murphy, C. J.; Orr, G.; Pedersen, J. A.; DeStefano, L.; Hamers, R. J. Enhancing Graduate Student Communication to General Audiences through Blogging about Nanotechnology and Sustainability. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1600−1605. (39) Vollath, D. Nanomaterials: An Introduction to Synthesis, Properties and Applications; Wiley-VCH: Germany, 2008. (40) Cademartiri, L.; Ozin, G. A. Concepts of Nanochemistry; WileyVCH: Germany, 2009. (41) A Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Bloom, B. S., Ed.; David McKay: New York, 1956.

(12) Olson, R.; Olson, M. Food Limitation of Planktotrophic Marine Invertebrate Larvae - Does it Control Recruitment Success. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1989, 20, 225−247. (13) Johnson, C.; Sutton, D.; Olson, R.; Giddins, R. Settlement of Crown-Of-Thorns Starfish - Role of Bacteria on Surfaces of Coralline Algae and a Hypothesis for Deep-Water Recruitment. Mar. Ecol.: Prog. Ser. 1991, 71, 143−162. (14) Carlon, D.; Olson, R. Larval Dispersal Distance as an Explanation for Adult Spatial Pattern in Two Caribbean Reef Corals. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 1993, 173, 247−263. (15) Olson, R.; Cameron, J.; Young, C. Larval Development (With Observations on Spawning) of the Pencil Urchin PhyllacanthusImperialis - a New Intermediate Larval Form. Biol. Bull. 1993, 185, 77− 85. (16) American Chemical Society Community Outreach; American Chemical Society, 2018. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/ education/outreach.html (accessed March, 2018). (17) Heard, G. L. The Impact of Outreachand the Vital Role of Chemistry Ambassadors. Chem. Eng. News 2013, 91, 43. (18) Maclachlan, J. Expand the Reach of Your Outreach Activities. Chem. Eng. News 2017, 95, 40−40. (19) Wang, L. OUTREACH: National Chemistry Week will Spotlight Chemistry in the Community. Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88, 8. (20) Strem, M. E. Public Outreach in the Trenches. Chem. Eng. News 1998, 76, 42−43. (21) Kahan, D. Fixing the Communications Failure. Nature 2010, 463, 296−297. (22) Scheufele, D. A. Science Communication as Political Communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014, 111, 13585− 13592. (23) Payne, A.; deProphetis, W.; Ellis, A.; Derenne, T.; Zenner, G.; Crone, W. Communicating Science to the Public through a UniversityMuseum Partnership. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 743−750. (24) Bodsgard, B. R.; Johnson, T. A.; Kugel, R. W.; Lien, N. R.; Mueller, J. A.; Martin, D. J. Organizing a High School Chemistry Outreach Event: Celebrating National Chemistry Week and the International Year of Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 1347−1350. (25) Cook, D. H. Conflicts in Chemistry: The Case of Plastics, A Role-Playing Game for High School Chemistry Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 1580−1586. (26) Morais, C. Storytelling with Chemistry and Related Hands-On Activities: Informal Learning Experiences to Prevent ″Chemophobia″ and Promote Young Children’s Scientific Literacy. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 58−65. (27) Gaquere-Parker, A. C.; Doles, N. A.; Parker, C. D. Chemistry and Art in a Bag: An Easy-To-Implement Outreach Activity Making and Painting with a Copper-Based Pigment. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 152−153. (28) Peterson, E. K.; Mitra, R. M. Enhancing Interactions between Research Lab Students & Their Communities. Am. Biol. Teach. 2016, 78, 509−511. (29) Curtis, K. S. Science after School: Way Cool! A Course-Based Approach to Teaching Science Outreach. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2017, 41, 10−15. (30) Busch, D. S.; O’Donnell, M. J.; Hauri, C.; Mach, K. J.; Poach, M.; Doney, S. C.; Signorini, S. R. Understanding, Characterizing, and Communicating Responses to Ocean Acidification Challenges and Uncertainties. Oceanography 2015, 25, 30−39. (31) Lithgow, K. Communicating Conservation Science. Stud. Conserv. 2015, 60, 57−63. (32) Bobroff, J.; Bouquet, F. A Project-Based Course about Outreach in a Physics Curriculum. Eur. J. Phys. 2016, 37, 045704. (33) Brown, M. K.; Brown, L. C.; Jepson-Innes, K.; Lindeau, M.; Stone, J. Bringing Organic Chemistry to the Public: Structure and Scent in a Science Museum. J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 251−255. (34) Schwarz, G.; Burger, M.; Guex, K.; Gundlach-Graham, A.; Kaser, D.; Koch, J.; Velicsanyi, P.; Wu, C.; Gunther, D.; Hattendorf, B. Demonstrating Rapid Qualitative Elemental Analyses of Participant F

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00963 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX